What really drives revenue in college sports? The answer reveals a rarely told story and an MVP who never touched the field.

The proposed House v. NCAA settlement includes back damages and revenue sharing going forward. It specifies that 90% of the $2.58 billion in back damages go to football and men’s basketball players, 5% to women’s basketball players and 5% to athletes in all other sports. Each college decides how to distribute future revenue, though many will use the backpay distribution model as a precedent, something that the University of Georgia has announced it will do.

Is it fair for football and men’s basketball to get 90% of the revenue? After all, media rights for football, followed by men’s basketball, bring in the vast majority of revenue. Football and basketball brought in that money, so players of those sports should benefit, right? Maybe. But if we peel back a few layers, we discover that the primary revenue drivers never touched the field.

How much revenue a college sport generates is based primarily on whether media rights accurately reflect the value the sport offers, along with how much marketing it receives, and the history of investment in the sport. Yes, the quality of the product matters, as does fan interest. But fan interest is a shaped by marketing. Until very recently, marketing of women’s sports has been negligible -- around 4% of media share -- and most games were not televised.

The men’s March Madness tournament brings in so much more revenue than the women’s not because it is a better product, or because there is more fan interest. It generates much more revenue because over the years, the NCAA negotiated much better media rights........

© Sports Business Journal